IRAN-U.S.
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Who should apologize?
12-Feb-2009
If there is anyone who must apologize to the Iranian people, it is first and foremost Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his four year regime of economic collapse, corruption, executions and more suppression of Iran's civil society activists.
Like most Iranians but only more so, I have lived with the sad history of US and the British involvement in the coup against the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq. In many ways, our history either begins with Cyrus the Great or Mossadeq. The latter is very dear to me, not just because my fa ther was his personal attorney, but because the more I read about him and his vision for Iran, the more I believe in the democratic values he upheld: a free press, an independent country based on social justice involving a fair distribution of wealth. Like many Iranians, I wish that history could be reversed.
But the Islamic regime is far from all of that, especially under Ahmadinejad's presidency. Almost four years ago, just returned from Iran after seeing the bad, the good and the ugly under the Islamic regime, I had the misfortune of going to the Hilton in New York City and attending Ahmadinejad's speech to the “wonderful Iranians living in the US.” He had just been elected as president. Anyone with the slightest inkling of how the officials of this regime behave could see right through him. One could hear the ramblings of a street-smart fellow, a preacher engaged in demagoguery rather than a statesman ready to lead his country's administration. When I got up and asked Mr. Larijani, now speaker of Majlis and then head of Iran's nuclear program, why not a single street or an alley bore the name of the man who dedicated his life to defending his nation against the British and the U S, he reluctantly said “Mossadeq is in our hearts,” and in the next breath uttered the name of Ayatollah Kashani.
Iranians know how history unfolded: Kashani, a cleric who would become Khomeini's idol, turned his back on Mossadeq and, by all accounts, collaborated with the coup organizers. In fact, he was one of the first to congratulate the corrupt government that emerged from Mossadegh's overthrow. A highway in Tehran is named after him. There is a street in the name of Bobby Sands, who was a member of the Irish Republican Army and even E.G. Browne, the famous British Orientalist who sympathized with the Iranian constitutionalists, But not a single little alley in all of Iran bears the name of Mohammed Mossadeq. The Shah and, subsequently, Khomeini and the Islamic Republic were always scared of his long shadow cast by his legacy in the form of his continued popularity among many Iranians.
Thus, when Ahmadinejad speaks of "60 years of US crimes in Iran” and the coup against the nationalist regime, he sounds less than authentic. He and his regime have never uttered the name of the man responsible for the oil nationalization, whose government was in fact toppled for that reason. Ahmadinejad keeps using old-style rhetoric to enflame people's sentiments against the US and to rally them behind his failed economic and social programs. His pre-election campaign rhetoric, “a man of the people” is now just an empty slogan. His administration has included some of the most corrupt and criminal people since the inception of the Islamic regime.
As Ahmadinejad knows full well, during the Clinton Administration, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright did apologize to the Khatami government for the US role in the coup. I believe that apology was sufficient and should have been accepted. But we all know that the regime in Tehran has lived by and uses such rhetoric and crisis making to shout that everything is the fault of the US or their British counterparts. There are historical instances where both countries interfered in Iran's affairs. Especially under Republican administrations, the U.S. has done major damage to US- Iran relations. Yet no one can deny that in Iran, the most fundamental rights have been violated by the Islamic regime rather than the Americans or the British. Iranian journalists, students, and women activists are indiscriminately harassed and incarcerated by the Islamic authorities, not by foreign governments. The same holds true for the recent shutting down of Shirin Ebadi's office.
We must therefore take responsibility for our own actions and deeds and not blame “foreign agents” for all the malaise in our society. This begins with the recognition that if it were not for the involvement of Iranians, the 1953 coup would never have succeeded.
If there is anyone who must apologize to the Iranians people it's the current regime in Tehran, having inflicted unprecedented harm to the nation for thirty years now. Today, it is trying to erase evidence of what is perhaps its most heinous crime, the execution of thousands of prisoners without trial, by destroying Khavaran Cemetery, the mass burial site of these hapless victims.
President Obama has offered the olive branch without preconditions, and I do think he means it— even if the regime in Tehran m ay want to believe otherwise.
The people of the United States elected a new president, and have demanded change. Once the Iranians choose a new president in June, the regime should put aside the old slogan of “Marg bar America” (Death to America) and turn a new page as well. I believe both peoples deserve a change of attitudes, and need it more than ever. It is time for Iranians and Americans to welcome a new relationship between the US and Iran based upon mutual respect, friendship, economic benefit and cultural exchange. The tit for tat must stop. The past is only lessons in history. It is time for a fresh start in the long and murky US-Iran relationship.
| Recently by Fariba Amini | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Forgotten Captive | 61 | Nov 27, 2012 |
| The Bride and the Dowry | 3 | Nov 27, 2012 |
| Enemy Number One? | 64 | Sep 07, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
ozre bad tar az gonaah!
by factfinder (not verified) on Fri Feb 13, 2009 07:52 AM PSTF Amini:
"they [the clergy] hated Mossadeq! Mossadeq was against the role of clergy in politics"
is that why Bazargan and his cronies raced each other to kiss Imam Khomeini's hand?
Programmer Craig:
by mahvareh (not verified) on Fri Feb 13, 2009 07:40 AM PSTAll I've been able to find are pro-IRI propaganda claims that (strangely!) match your comments almost word for word. And they all trace back to a "report" that the IRI directly commissioned. There isn't a single reputable supporting source. Not one.
Do you think our dear professor was commissioned by the IRI to write that report?
Mammad
by dearprofessor (not verified) on Fri Feb 13, 2009 07:38 AM PSTIf what you say is correct, then why is it that the US constantly
reminds Iran of its international obligations?
What is this all about? The US is trying to force the IRI to comply with agreements the Shah made? Can you document that?
Mammad, please kindly substantiate your claim with facts and evidence.
PC
by Shalom Mazloom (not verified) on Fri Feb 13, 2009 07:25 AM PSTI guess they either kicked you out of the "Arab" sites that you go and preach or you are stationed back to Iranian.com. Must be nice to have job and get paid to spread bul*sh*t
To Rahim: My father’s
by ferdos36 (not verified) on Fri Feb 13, 2009 06:34 AM PSTTo Rahim:
My father’s memoirs in 300 pages will be out in the summer of 2009. In there, he goes into a lot of details. My father knew Khomeini from almost 67 years ago. My mother’s family lived and rented a house in Khomein which belonged to Khomeini’s father. My father like many wanted to serve his country and that is why he accepted to serve under Bazargan. Here is part of an interview I did with him two years ago:
What did you say to Shapour Bakthiar when you telephoned him after he had become Prime Minister? Weren’t you still in the US at the time?
I called and talked to his secretary, Mrs. Kalantari. I said, tell him Dar khabar ast (it was a joke between us in prison). Bakhtiar realized who was on the line and told his secretary, ‘let me speak to Mr. Amini.’ We chatted a little; a few days later, Shapur called me back. He said “I got rid of him;” I said who? He said, “The Shah.” I said that is not enough. You should declare a Republic; otherwise the Mullahs will take over. He thought that they (the army) would kill him if he did that. He said, I want to declare a republic and bring the Shah back as a figurehead. But I am concerned what the reaction might be.
//iranian.com/FaribaAmini/2007/February/F...
I always tell him that Jebeh Melli made grave mistakes not to stand up to the clerics at the beginning of the Revolution and handed the silver platter to them. At that time, they were neither organized nor had the means to take over. They should not have resigned and pave the way for a takeover. But the National Front, though having very honest, incorruptible individuals, has never been known for being gutsy, except for a few individuals. I wish JM had supported Bakhtiar but the problem with our politicians is that they all have big egos!
In reply to Mammad, I am not speaking about an apology by the US in this article. All I am saying is that the IRI and especially Ahmadi Nejad uses this for their own benefit and they do not really mean it. This same Islamic Republic dealt with the US during the Iran-Iraq war to buy arms and military equipments through the Israelis, the same Israel they love to hate. Karrubi was involved in the negotationas and so were relatives of Rafsanjani who in fact benefited greatly from the transactions. For a fascinating read on the subject look for a book called the October Surprise. Also, Ahmadi Nejad met with Hossein Fatemi’s wife and told her in an article from a year ago that it was Fatemi who came up the idea of nationalization. In a way he wanted to discredit Mossadeq. Almost all IRI officials including Khatami have declined to mention his role in a positive way. If you remember Khomeini was so infuriated after the Revolution when hundreds of thousands had gone to Ahmad Abad to honor Mossadeq that he said: barayeh yek mosht poust o ostekhoun jam shodan!!!!
To Setareh :
I agree with you and everyone else. I am all for a real apology by Obama. I think all of us would welcome that but even if that is not done in so many words, the time has come to move on and try to mend things instead of dwelling all the time in the past. I do think that we Iranians have a tendency to do so vs. other people who move on. We have to do it for everyone’s sake. The IRI does not want a rapprochement because they will lose at the end.
To Mr. Jaleo: I never claimed to know everything but at least I try and put my thoughts and the little knowledge I have into writing . Instead of criticizing me, why don’t you write more for this website and enlighten all of us!
FA
BTW I don't know where your information comes from but from my own readings, one of Kashani's sons was the first who went on radio immediately after the coup and congradulated the coup organizers. they hated Mossadeq! Mossadeq was against the role of clergy in politics.
Programmer?? craig propaganda
by XerXes (not verified) on Fri Feb 13, 2009 05:59 AM PSTIt's brainwashed at its best. During 2006 there were "talks" about sending spare parts for civilian aviation, but your Jewish lobby buddies have not allowed it. And you know well that if you go against the Lobbiest, you are dead.
No matter how mad you get, and your Zionist behind burns, Iran doesn't give a sh**t. You got to deal with Iran as an American not a Zionist, or you keep losing the battles.
By the way, are you enjoying the Obama presidency. hahaha. your warmongers are kind of, well, disappeared. What you gonna do now?
Zionism is Terrorism.
Madeline Albright Came short
by Abarmard on Fri Feb 13, 2009 05:44 AM PSTof apologizing. There are a lot of tit for tat in the love hate relationship between Iran and the US.
The best would be on a press conference, both apologize for the past and shake hands, or even kiss Iranian style! and move on.
Fariba khanoom
by Setareh Sabety on Fri Feb 13, 2009 05:23 AM PSTWell put; I do not think poor Mossadegh would want a defender like Ahmadinejad. Still though I would like to see an apology. Albright gave one already in fact but they could repeat it. We are still paying for that mega criminal gaffe. They should either apologize or do us Iranians a favor and repeat operation ajax with this regime! It might work better!
Thanks to the US
by MiNeum71 on Fri Feb 13, 2009 04:41 AM PSTWell, I´m quite fancifulness, but I can´t find any reason for apologizing to the US. They never stopped meddling in Iranian´s affairs, they cultivated a dictatorship, which killed many Iranians, and created an environement which made this Islamic Republic possible.
The clenched fist apologia
by Fred on Fri Feb 13, 2009 02:22 AM PSTAlthough this apologia write-up uses historical events to explain away the Islamist regime’s abhorrent and most often illegal behavior, the cherry picking of historical events gives its intention away.
For a historic perspective which begins by the 1800’s Russo-Persian wars to hopscotch over crucial and pertinent post WWII events in which America is the major player leaves a gaping hole.
It is understood the aim of the write-up is to paint America as horrible as possible and therefore justifying the Islamists’ actions. But not even a passing mention of the successful Truman ultimatum to occupying Russian forces to vacate Iran?
The Soviets had installed their cronies in two Iranian provinces and were intent on lopping off the remaining Azerbaijan province from Iran to incorporate it to the part they took per the mentioned treaties in the apologia, the omission, to say the least, is intellectually dishonest.
No doubt major portion of the American policy in Iran, most particularly the crucial part in the British plot against the democratically elected Mossadegh, who history has proven to be loved by the masses, is inexcusable. Some honest historians have begun to draw a direct line between that sorry event and the 9/11 crime by the Islamists, but to use the coup against Mossadegh in an Islamist republic apologia is over the top.
It is no secret to anyone, least to the readers of the current article at the top, that the Islamist republic does not like Mossadegh and only begrudgingly even mentions his name. The ruling Islamists credit Kashani with Mossadegh’s oil nationalization and of course forgo his colorful criminal past and the crucial part he played in the TPAJAX operation. The grand daddy of the Islamists, Khomeini, even admonished Iranians for not letting go of some “rotten bones”, his derogatory reference to Mossadegh.
Now the Islamists are using an event that they despise its hero to justify their criminal behaviors like the hostage taking. That will not wash.
Dear Rahim: let me answer your questions
by factfinder (not verified) on Fri Feb 13, 2009 02:18 AM PSTYou will never get a straight answer, or perhaps any answer, from Fariba Amini. In her classic and clumsy style of debate, she finds it absolutely proper to bring her father into the middle of every other article she writes, like this present one:
"In many ways, our history either begins with Cyrus the Great or Mossadeq. The latter is very dear to me, not just because my fa ther was his personal attorney, but because ... "
But the moment one questions the crediblity of the Bazaragan and his gang, Nosratollah Amini being one, she screams her head off and charges her critics for personalizing the issue!!
So let me try to answer some of the questions you have so rationally asked of Ms Amini:
1. The group of power greedy men who clung to the tail of Bazaragan, were, above all betraying one of the principal doctorines of Mossadegh: i.e. separation of state from religion. Bazargan, was never a close aide or confidant of Mossadegh because the good Dr never trusted him as a nationalist. Bazaragan always put Islam ahead of Iran. Mossadegh himself is guilty of having flirted with the mullahs, i.e. Aytollah Kashani, in the hope of shoring up Islamic support but at the end relized that they were muslim first and Irani, second (if at all). So, all the people who wer in Bazargan's cabinet, like Sanjabi, Foroohar, Sabbaghian, etc. and all his appointed governors and other officials are guilty of turning their backs against Mossadegh. They were driven by their lust for power and their foolish belief that Khomeini would take the back seat and let them drive the country. Many of them, including Mr Amini, knew full well what Khomeini stood for (compulsory Hejab, Islamic sharia laws, Velayate Faghih) but for the moment all they cared for was their seat of power. They didn't take the leftist movements seriously as they thought, correctly, of the leftist as a bunch of jokers who were detached from the real people (Ms Amini herself a sympathizer of the Chereek haye Fadaee must have been convinced her father that the leftists were just full of hot air and nothing else).
2. among Mossadegh followers there were only two hugely outstanding men whose courage and loyalty to their old leader was beyond comparison with the Bazargan and his gang. They were Dr Sadighi and Dr Bakhtiar. Both men accepted the Shah's offer of premiership subject to their own conditions. Unfortunately the Shah found Bakhtiar's offer more favorable. The Bazaragan gang preferred to kiss Khomeini's hand and to secure their hold to power, and in doing so they showed a total disregard for the 1906 Constitutional law of the country, the same law that, ironically, they used to accuse the Shah for undermining it.
3. Of course they realized that the execution of the Shah's Generals was against all the civilized laws, icluding the Islamic law. But, once again, their power greed overcame their hudgment and they decided to turn a blind eye on teh issue - after all who is going to care for the loss of the lives of a few army men who were the Shah's lackeys, they thought to themselves. This is one sticky issue that more than anything else exposes the true face of the so-called lawyers aming the Bazargan gang, Nosrat Amini being one, who should have upheld the rule of the law to which he was sworn to uphold, above anything else.
4. Again, after all these years, the Bazargan gang must have realized that they made such a huge mistake, but their hatred of the Pahlavi for haning deprived them of a chance to rule the country gets their better judgment and they continue to claim that they did the right thing at that time.
The reality is that no other group were more treacherous to the national interests of Iran than those who paved the way in for the mullahs: Bazaragan and his entire entourage.
Mammad one last thing
by programmer craig on Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:42 AM PSTThe US sold civilian aircrafts to Iran. According to international
treaties governing civil aviations - which the US has signed - the US
is obligated to sell the spare parts for the aircraft on demand by
Iran.
I've been googling my ass off trying to find out the veracity of that claim, since I can't find the treaty obligation you speak of. All I've been able to find are pro-IRI propaganda claims that (strangely!) match your comments almost word for word. And they all trace back to a "report" that the IRI directly commissioned. There isn't a single reputable supporting source. Not one.
PS - while I was doing all that googling, I discovered that the US has in fact been approving sale of spare parts for civilian aircraft to Iran. Not that you care, as it doesn't match your talking points.
PPS - the IRI commissioned that report after the crash of a MILITARY C-130 several years ago.
Mammad
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:46 PM PSTThe only thing fallacious here is you not admitting that you are wrong,
and continue an absurd argument based on fictitious concepts.
Like statehood? :o
So, now
you decide that the country that bought those civilian aircrafts does
not exist, because you refuse to admit that you are wrong.
It seems like it was Khomeini who decided the nation that the Shah ruled no longer exists. Something to do with a revolution, I heard.
in this case international treaties that the US has signed -
you start your silly "arguments."
Have you ever read the Vienna Conventions, by any chance? Have you ever made a silly argument that gave Iran a free pass for eggregiously violating them in every detail in 1979? Something like "You deserved it because of Mossadeeq in 1953" or some such?
If what you say is correct, then why is it that the US constantly
reminds Iran of its international obligations?
What is this all about? The US is trying to force the IRI to comply with agreements the Shah made? Can you document that?
Most of those
obligations are in agreements that your Iran - i.e., Iran before the
revolution - had signed! So, yeah, let's once again decide what is our
obligations, what is theirs!!
What are you talking about?
Deprogram your brain. That would be very useful to you. It will free
you of your baseless arrogance, and prevent you from uselessly barking.
Good night
Good night? I challenged you to provide proof of your claims about what the Convention on International Civil Aviation says, and even provided a link to the treaty, and you say "good night"? And you call ME a liar? Dude... If we're going to hire you as our Ambassador to Iran, you are going to have to work on that bit. That may be OK for Iranian diplomats, but Americans don't play that way. Youmade a specific claim about a treaty obligation you say exists. I've looked, twice, and I don't see it. It should take you 5 minutes to point me to the correct clause, since you must have already read it at least once, right?
Months before Madeleine
by Dariush (not verified) on Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:45 PM PSTMonths before Madeleine Albright apologized to Iran, there was a coalition forming between Iran and Arabian countries. The apology wasn't but a tactic to fool Iranians for future use and playing with Arabs psyche to worry them about the possibility of a friendship between Iran and U.S. So that Arabs be try to take upper hand and fill the gap by extending more favors to U.S. such as army bases, arm deals, cheap oil and etc.
Historicly U.S. has made many promises and signed many agreements that has turned up to be broken by them whenever they felt to do so.
There are more tactics being planned by the key players with new cards in hand. I do find Obama sincere in his friendship offer based on mutual respect backed by his future actions which is yet to be seen. He has basically boxed himself with his speech and if he was not sincere, he wouldn't have done that.
Just as U.S. looks after her interest Iran should look after her interest. By her, I mean public not certain officials. Apology won't do much good. Instead, actions such as the release of Persian artifacts, lifting sanctions, releasing the banks assets and etc should be required. Meanwhile IRI should start delivering the same respect and justice expected from west, toward the public in Iran.
If Obama brings peace to Palestine and pull out of Iraq and stop the treats and sanctions, there will be no one to blame for the ill actions in Iran, Iran will change for better or there will be another revolution.
Programmer Craig
by Mammad on Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:24 PM PSTThe only thing fallacious here is you not admitting that you are wrong, and continue an absurd argument based on fictitious concepts. So, now you decide that the country that bought those civilian aircrafts does not exist, because you refuse to admit that you are wrong.
That is the typical arrogance that people like you exhibit. You have to be right all the time. So, when you are confronted with documented facts - in this case international treaties that the US has signed - you start your silly "arguments."
If what you say is correct, then why is it that the US constantly reminds Iran of its international obligations? Most of those obligations are in agreements that your Iran - i.e., Iran before the revolution - had signed! So, yeah, let's once again decide what is our obligations, what is theirs!!
Deprogram your brain. That would be very useful to you. It will free you of your baseless arrogance, and prevent you from uselessly barking. Good night
Mammad
Mammad
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:17 PM PSTDisregarding the small issue of the Islamic Republic not being the purchaser of those aircraft, I can't find the section of the treaty you mention that requires countries to sell spare parts:
//209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:fshDxRj1RQoJ:...
Can you help me out with that? I searched on "parts" and the only references I found were some requirements that "host"countries must (or should) make parts available if an aircraft requires maintenance before it can take off from an airport in a foreign country it has landed in. Is that what you are talking about? Does the US even allow Iranian jets to land here?
The US sold civilian
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:02 PM PSTThe US sold civilian aircrafts to Iran. According to international
treaties governing civil aviations - which the US has signed - the US
is obligated to sell the spare parts for the aircraft on demand by Iran.
Since we are making suggetsions to eachother, I suggest you look up the concept of "statehood" before making fallacious arguments.The Iran that the US sold equipment to ceased to exist in 1979.
Programmer Craig
by Mammad on Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:43 PM PSTI suggest that you first read the international treaties regarding civil aviations - to which the US is a signatory - then start making smart a.. comments.
The US sold civilian aircrafts to Iran. According to international treaties governing civil aviations - which the US has signed - the US is obligated to sell the spare parts for the aircraft on demand by Iran. We are not talking about jet fighters. We are talking about 727, 737, and 747 aircrafts. So, unless you have been programmed to think that the US can select which international treaty that it has signed is going to respect, it is obligated to do so.
Mammad
Mammad
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:09 PM PSTTherefore, many of those who - like me - believe that the US must
apologize to Iran as a precondition for any meaningful dialogue are not
forgetful about what the IRI has done.
So, if the US did restore relations with Iran, would we be expected to open an embassy in Tehran again? I can't really see that happening. Unless we hired local Iranians to staff it for us, which might be a bit problematic. Maybe we could hire Mammad to be our Ambassador, eh? Then we could say "poor mammad! this is so unacceptable!" when you showed up blindfolded on CNN, right? I think we could live with that.
Roshanbeen
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 12, 2009 09:55 PM PSTBut the hostility of the U.S. government toward Iran did not end with
the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq war.
Just the US Government? Not the American people? Or are you so used to being Iranian, that you don't think the opinions of ordinary citizens matter?
Consider, for
example, the U.S. government's refusal, in violation of its
international obligations, to supply the spare parts for the civilian
aircraft that it sold to Iran.
I don't even know what that means. Can you explain it? The US sold equipment, both military and civilian, to the Shah of Iran. What "international obligation" does the US have to sell spare parts for that equipment, to a hostile regime that OVERTHREW the government we had sold it to? It makes no sense whatsoever. What type of reasoning are you using to come up with that?
nice writing....
by ali133 (not verified) on Thu Feb 12, 2009 09:47 PM PSTbut I'm not surprised that the the akhoonds have ignored mossadegh.....it's very simple actually, these mullahs are dirty tools of the british and mossadegh was the arch enemy of the akhoonds' masters!
if only we could have had a true democracy- none of us would be in "ghorbaat"
i pray that 09 is our year!
Ms. Amini
by Mammad on Thu Feb 12, 2009 09:37 PM PSTThanks for your good article. There are many valid points in it.
However, with all due respect, you are mixing up two unrelated issues:
(a) Any sane person agrees that too many crimes have been committed by the right wing in Iran. If there is any justice, the perpetrators will have to apologize for their misdeed someday, in addition to being punished.
(b) However, that does not wash out the US crimes against Iran. The US has committed just too many crimes against Iran and Iranians, both before and after the revolution. Therefore, many of those who - like me - believe that the US must apologize to Iran as a precondition for any meaningful dialogue are not forgetful about what the IRI has done. The two are not mutually exclusive. They should not be mixed. They both have their place.
Mammad
There FK goes again
by Mammad on Thu Feb 12, 2009 09:30 PM PSTFK fabricates history again:
1. The Shah executed (from Rome) the coup, not the US. Even the US, Clinton Administration, and Madeleine Albright essentially apologized for the coup, but FK lives in his own parallel universe.
2. Responsibility for Lockerbie bombing. Libya paid $2.7 billion for the bombing and admitted to doing it, but, FK, from his universe, tells us otherwise.
3. Holding Al Qaeda members in Iran to SCARE the US. True, they were held in Iran, but IRI proposed to the US to excahnge them with the top leadership of Mojahedin - a terrorist group - but when the US refused, Iran sent most of them to their countries of origin. Moreover, the idea that Al Qaeda members in Iran under house arrest or in jail would scare the US is truly ridiculous.
4. Iran responsible for what happened in Lebanon? Now, here the internal contradictions of FK's universe emerge: the Shah executed the coup in Iran, therefore the US was not responsible. But, when the Lebanese resistance did what it did, let say with IRI support, IRI is responsible?
The more FK writes, the more absurd, the more hollow, the more devoid of substance his writing gets. I do not know what the purpose of such fabrications are.
Mammad
The crowd!
by Anjam (not verified) on Thu Feb 12, 2009 08:32 PM PSTFerdos36, the question is who shouted "long live Mossadeq" and who said "long live the Shah"? Before the coup, support for Mossadeq was of popular and spontaneous nature. Whereas after the coup on 28th of Mordad, while martial law in effect, it was Sh'aban Bimokh and his gang, Teyyeb Yakhi and his thugs along with the prostitutes of Shar-e-no riding on military personnel carriers, weilding clubs and shouting "javid Shah!" You seem to be confusing popular support with stage-managed demonstration!
Roshanbeen aziz
by IRANdokht on Thu Feb 12, 2009 08:31 PM PSTThat was a great article full of historical facts.
Thanks for posting it
IRANdokht
حالا نمیشود
رضا خان میر فایو (not verified)Thu Feb 12, 2009 08:27 PM PST
حالا نمیشوداین لغت "جان" را درموقع پاسخ دادن بیکدیگر بکار نبرید! که مثلا چه؟ بنده نه تنها با شما موافقم بلکه حاضرم جانم را هم در راهت فدا کنم؟ یا آنکه "مهم نیست دیگران عقیده شان چیست، مهم آنستکه من با تو موافقم و تو را جان خطاب میکنم که شاید دفعه دیگر هم تو با من موافقت کنی"!
بعد هم این مسئله معذرت خواهی هم از آن ژستهای بر ما مگوزید سبک فرانسوفیل هاست که مثلا بنده آزرده خاطرم و باید از من معذرت بخواهی!
جمع کنید این گلیم گدایی را. کدام معذرت، خودمان بوطن خیانت کردیم و میکنیم و ثروت را میدهیم اجنبی بخورد و ببرد بعد حالا نشستید منتظرید یکی بیاید از شما معذرت بخواهد؟
خوب حالا فرض کنیم بنده امریکا هستم و میایم از شما معذرت میخواهم، خوب بعدش چه میشود؟ آیا شما بر میگردید و میروید وطن برای خدمت؟ یا آنکه هنوز امیدتان آنستکه دلار بشود هفت تومان؟
آقا خیلی ببخشیدا عورض میخام ساعت چنده؟
Eye-ranians are moftkhors . . .
by Javadagha on Thu Feb 12, 2009 07:43 PM PSTOur country has produced many moftkhors whose attitude has been why they should get involved.
First thanks to those who fought for their vatan and did not run to hide or worst yet go against it. Just look at the number of "Fish," posting here.
I agree that our incompetent leaders must apologize, but the U.S. politicians also have been bunch of thieves and war mongers.
How can a country survive with so many vatanforosh, hostilities, sanctions, and threats? This is my question.
The author seems to be locked
by Jaleho on Thu Feb 12, 2009 07:32 PM PSTin a certain time frame, and with a one sided narrative, albeit a strong narrative at that! For example a look at the following makes you wonder:
"Like most Iranians but only more so, I have lived with the sad history of US and the British involvement in the coup against the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq. In many ways, our history either begins with Cyrus the Great or Mossadeq."
In the thousand years of Iran's history, Fariba finds a beginning only with either Cyrus, or Mosadegh, because her father had certain association with Mossadeq? BTW, many other living people, or their fathers had some association with events or characters of that period! Even if one forgets the thousands of years in between Cyrus and Mossadegh, I believe that Mossadegh himself would consider Iran's Constitutional Revolution more important than Mossadegh for example! Let alone the Islamic Revolution which for the past 30 years have not only shaped Iran, but the region and to some degree events around the world.
I am also amazed at many Jebheh Melli personalities who have this cult of character worship of Mosadegh, who all of a sudden find a British agent in Ayatollah Kashani! This is the man who was exiled by Brits, his opposition to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company goes at least as deep and far as Mosadegh, and a good chunk of Mosadegh's success is because of Kashani. There has been many different factions that did not agree hundred percent with everything Mossadegh believed in, would it make them collaborators with the British-CIA coup?! Would you accept table turned around and people say that Mossadegh was brought to premiership by the Fadyan Islam who assassinated RazmAra? Funny accusation, no?
Fariba mentions his father being Mossadegh's lawyer. I think she should also remember that Kashani's son was the head of Iranian delegation to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, representing Iran's case with the United States.
Beyond all of this, reading few of this author's article, I think she can really expand her own horizons and talents by pondering upon the meaning of some old Iranian maxims, and I don't mean it in a derogatory manner:
گیرم پدر تو بود فاضل
از فضل پدر تو را چه حاصل؟
Iran's Fist is cleched for a reason
by Roshanbeen (not verified) on Thu Feb 12, 2009 07:27 PM PSTA glance at history tells us why Iranians have a long-lasting sense of national insecurity. Iran is in one of the most strategic areas of world. This was as true 2,000 years ago as it is today. Because of its location, as well as its natural resources, Iran has been invaded and occupied many times by foreign powers, from Alexander the Great and his army to the Arabs, Moguls, Turks, Russians, and British. Over the last 200 years alone, Russia, Britain, and the U.S. have tried to control Iran.
Two Russo-Persian wars that resulted in the Treaty of Gulistan in 1813 and the Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1828 enabled Russia to separate and occupy a large part of Iran in the Caucasus region (the present Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia), and the British empire ended Iran's political influence in Afghanistan through the Treaty of Peshawar in 1855. In the late 1800s and early 1900s Russia and Britain divided Iran into their spheres of influence. Russia supported the forces that were opposed to Iran's Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1908, and it opposed the industrialization of Iran, in particular, the construction of railways. Britain played the key role in the 1921 coup that brought Reza Shah to power in Iran and established his dictatorship. British and Russian forces invaded and occupied Iran during World War II. The CIA-sponsored coup of 1953 overthrew Iran's democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and started the era of U.S. influence in Iran. The U.S. helped establish and train the SAVAK, the shah's dreaded security services. These events ultimately led to the revolution of 1979.
The hostage crisis of November 1979-January 1981, during which 53 American diplomats and embassy staff were taken hostage by Iranian students, should be viewed in light of Iran's bitter experience of the 1953 CIA coup. As one of the student hostage-takers told Bruce Laingen, chief U.S. diplomat in Tehran at that time, "You have no rights to complain, because you took our whole nation hostage in 1953."
The history of Iran-U.S. relations since the resolution of the hostage crisis in 1981 shows that the U.S.' goal has been to hamper Iran's economic development and prevent its integration with the rest of the Middle East. This has meant only one thing to Iranian leaders: the U.S. has never recognized the legitimacy of the 1979 revolution and has always been intent on overthrowing their government. This perception, backed by Iran's historical sense of insecurity, is not difficult to understand.
The U.S. directly encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in September 1980, hoping that the invasion would topple Iran's revolutionary government. When the war started, the U.S. refused to supply Iran with the spare parts for the weapons that it had sold to the shah of Iran, even though Iran had already paid for them (the funds paid to the U.S., lawfully Iran's, are still frozen after 29 years). After the war began, the U.S. prevented the United Nations Security Council for several days to convene an emergency meeting, and after the UNSC finally met, the U.S. prevented it from declaring Iraq the aggressor, or even calling for a cease-fire. Only after Iranian forces pushed back Saddam's army out of most of Iran in the spring of 1982 did the UNSC call for a cease-fire. President Ronald Reagan imposed economic sanctions on Iran in 1983, in violation of the Algiers Agreement of January 1981 that ended the hostage crisis.
The U.S. dropped its pretense of neutrality in December 1983 when President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to offer Saddam U.S. support. It kept silent as Iraq showered Iranian troops with chemical weapons. While Iraq was attacking Iran's oil installations in the Persian Gulf, the U.S. and other members of NATO sent their naval forces to the Persian Gulf to protect Arab oil tankers that had provided Iraq with $50 billion in aid to keep fighting Iran. The U.S. destroyed a significant part of Iran's navy in the Persian Gulf, as well as several of Iran's offshore oil platforms.
The U.S. intervention in the war culminated with the shootdown of Iran Air's Airbus A300B2 on Sunday July 3, 1988, by the USS Vincennes. The civilian aircraft, which was flying from Bandar Abbas to Dubai, was carrying 290 passengers and crew, including 66 children, and was flying within Iranian airspace, while the Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters in the Straits of Hormuz. All 290 passengers were killed.
The war finally ended in July 1988, with 1 million Iranian casualties (at least 273,000 dead) and $1 trillion in damage to Iran's economy and infrastructure. At the same time, Iran's extreme Right used the war to suppress progressive forces, stopping Iran's evolution toward democracy.
When it came to compensating the Vincennes victims' families and showing remorse, the Clinton administration exhibited utter contempt for any sense of justice. Although the U.S. agreed in 1996 to pay $61.8 million as compensation for the Iranians killed, it never accepted responsibility nor apologized for the shootdown. In addition, the compensation paid to the Iranians should be compared to what the U.S. forced Libya to pay for the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which was destroyed on Dec. 21, 1988, over Lockerbie, Scotland: $10 million for each victim.
But the hostility of the U.S. government toward Iran did not end with the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq war. Every subsequent move toward Iran – small or large – has been meant to either strangle Iran's economy or prevent Iran from making political gains in the region. Consider, for example, the U.S. government's refusal, in violation of its international obligations, to supply the spare parts for the civilian aircraft that it sold to Iran. The U.S. has also prevented the European Union from selling civilian aircraft to Iran. As a result, Iran's civilian fleet consists mostly of old and obsolete Russian aircraft, many of which have crashed, resulting in high casualties.
While preaching that Iran does not need nuclear energy because it has vast oil and natural gas reserves, the U.S. has made every effort to prevent foreign companies from investing in Iran's oil and gas industry and helping Iran develop its untapped natural gas reservoirs. The U.S. also prevented the transportation of Azerbaijan's oil by a pipeline through Iran and instead pushed for a purely political pipeline through Georgia and Turkey.
Whereas, according to every report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has abided by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its Safeguards Agreement, the U.S. has repeatedly, and without presenting any credible evidence, accused Iran of having a secret nuclear weapons program, even though its own latest National Intelligence Estimate from November 2007 stated that Iran stopped its weapons program in 2003 (and there is actually no evidence that Iran had such a program even prior to 2003). In violation of the IAEA Statute, the U.S. forced its Board of Governors to demand the suspension of Iran's legal uranium enrichment program. The Board of the IAEA has no legal authority to make such a demand.
Such baseless accusations, together with the U.S. blackmail of some members of the IAEA Board, were the primary reasons for sending Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council (UNSC). But, this was illegal, because it was against Article 12(c) of the IAEA Statute, which clearly states the conditions under which a member state's nuclear dossier should be sent to the UNSC. As Michael Spies of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms has explained [.pdf]:
"Verification and enforcement of the non-proliferation objectives contained in the NPT are limited, in part to maintain the balance of rights and obligations of state parties. NPT Safeguards, administered by the IAEA, are limited to verifying that no nuclear material in each non-weapon state has been diverted to weapons or unknown use. These safeguards allow for the IAEA to report a case of non-compliance to the Security Council only if nuclear material is found to have been diverted."
According to every report of the IAEA, such a diversion has never occurred in Iran's case. As a result, even the legality of the three UNSC resolutions against Iran is in doubt, because they are based on the illegal actions of the IAEA Board. Regardless, not only has the U.S. pressured others to enforce the resolutions, it has also imposed unilateral sanctions and blackmailed others to do the same. Moreover, the U.S. has opposed Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization, hence preventing integration of its economy with the rest of the world.
Iran provided crucial help to the U.S. to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, but the Bush administration rewarded it by making Iran a member of the "axis of evil." The Shi'ite groups that spent their exile years in Iran, and were supported and funded by it, are now in power in Iraq and are considered allies of the U.S. But, instead of recognizing and appreciating this fact, the U.S. has accused Iran of aiding "special groups" in Iraq, meaning extremists and radicals. And in a show of force, in addition to surrounding Iran with the U.S. forces on three sides, the Bush administration dispatched two carrier battle groups to the Persian Gulf in May 2007. Dick Cheney used the deck of the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis to threaten Iran: "We'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region. We'll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats."
The U.S. has also pushed for the formation of regional alliances against Iran, such as the Gulf Cooperation Council, and has sold tens billions of dollars' worth of weapons to the Council's members, weapons that they neither have the capability nor the need to ever use.
Even now that the supposedly realist Obama administration has taken over and the president is looking for Iran's unclenched fist, the threats have not stopped nor changed in nature. Asked if the military option was still on the table with regard to Iran, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Jan. 28, "The president hasn't changed his viewpoint that he should preserve all his options. We must use all elements of our national power to protect our interests as it relates to Iran."
Given decades of hostility, sanctions, threats, and attacks, is it any wonder that Iran's fist is still clenched? How is Iran supposed to forget 55 years of hostility without even a simple apology by the U.S. for its misdeeds?
About the author:
Muhammad Sahimi, professor of chemical engineering and materials science, and the NIOC professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, has published extensively on Iran's political developments and its nuclear program.
Related articles by Muhammad Sahimi:
Iran Is No Threat, Unless Bush Makes It One
Iran's Nuclear Program. Part I: Its History
Iran's Nuclear Program. Part II: Are Nuclear Reactors Necessary?
Iran's Nuclear Program. Part III: The Emerging Crisis
Iran's Nuclear Energy Program. Part IV: Economic Analysis of the Program
Iran's Nuclear Energy Program. Part V: From the United States Offering Iran Uranium Enrichment Technology to Suggestions for Creating Catastrophic Industrial Failure
Iran's Nuclear Energy Program. Part VII: Are Referral of Iran's Nuclear Dossier to the Security Council and Resolutions 1696, 1737, and 1747 Legal?
... Payvand News - 02/11/09 ... --
Bookmark/Share this post with:
Delicious | Digg | Facebook | Furl | Google | Magnolia | Newsvine | Reddit | Yahoo
© Copyright 2009 NetNative
(All Rights Reserved)
Re: my father
by Rahim (not verified) on Thu Feb 12, 2009 06:45 PM PSTFariba: I am curious as to how a patriot (your father) would mix with these nation-less crowd.
I am really interested in knowing the mindset of your father at the time, for example in regard to the following issues, if you care to comment:
1. Didn't he know that neither islamic fanatics nor leftist ideologues could provide a recipe for progress of the country. Hadn't he read Khomeini's book to realize that he was a truly backward thinking fanatic, dangerous to the future of the country in subsequent ACTs of the regime (hejab, hangings, long sleeves for men, shut down of Ayandegan, ...).
2. Why didn't he line up behind bakhtiar as an alternative to mullas and leftists (and shah's traditional government).
3. Didn't he see the nature of that regime in ACT I of the islamic republic, i.e., mass murder of shah's generals without due process, and didn't he realize the fraudulent claim of khomeini.
4. Didn't he (or doesn't he in hindsight) believe that shah's regime had a much better chance of evolving into a democratic regime, specially with aging/passing of the shah, given the nasty characters in his opposition whose sole aim was to rule iran and control country's wealth while neither understood nor believed in prosperity as we know it.
Thank you.